Template racks in 14.1 taboo...?

[The_JV]

I understand but it isn't really straight pool played properly if you are able to use break balls that normally would be considered in the rack. For instance, any high run you might report to the 14.1 forum list would be disqualified if you happened to use such a break shot.

Big picture, do whatever you want and it's great you're playing straight pool. Just letting you know some of the caveats.

So I thought I would dig into the rules a little... Our local high run thread isn't seem to be enforcing such a thing, and isn't enforcing things like all ball fouls or specific racking method.

Here is what I found on the BCA rules website:
If the 15th (un-pocketed) ball of a rack and/or the cue ball interferes with the triangle being lowered straight down into position for racking, refer to the diagram, which indicates the proper manner of relocating balls.

Here's the rule from a site "claiming" the WPA version:
A ball is considered to interfere with the rack if it is within or overlaps the outline of the rack. The referee will state when asked whether a ball interferes with the rack

Looks like the point is not to have the break ball in a position that interferes with the racking method. If the racking method whether it be a thin triangle, thick triangle, sardo, or the focus of this discussion a template, isn't inhibited at all then it is prefectly fine. The difference here is that the template wouldn't interfere with any ball regardless of its proximity to the rack. Interference to the rack would occur prior.

So if a template is acceptable for racking purposes, then there is no proximity rule for the break ball.

Unless of course there is a definitive measurement for the no man's land around the rack. The linked BCA website mentions a diagram for reference, but I was unable to find it.

***EDIT***
Here's the actual WPA rules from their site:
When the balls are re-racked, the apex ball is omitted if only fourteen balls are
being racked. The marked outline of the triangle will be used to determine whether an
intended break ball is in the rack area. If the table is tapped at 14.1 the outline of a triangle
will still be drawn for the purpose of deciding whether a ball is in the rack area. When ball rack template is used at 14.1 the outline of a triangle will still be drawn for the purpose of deciding whether a ball is in the rack area..

The problem with the above is the lack of standard for rack thickness....? I could easily make a functional rack that's only 1/16th in thickness and get away with every close proximity break ball I have encountered.

I think the reality is the proximity rule is in place for sake of settling arguments on whether a break ball needs to be moved to the head spot. I don't think there's an advantage to be had by being closer to the rack. In fact as the shooter you're probably better off having it moved to the head spot. Things like rack alignment and gaps are far more improtant.

 

[Poolmanis]

Maybe this is more moral issue.. I like to practice. 9-ball ghost with 2 behind the rack and random otherwise just not give myself too much leeway..
If i wanted to push new record or something I could pattern rack+ soft break for sure. I want to make my records without tricks. No pattern racking or something fishy soft breaking. I break same rules as we use in Finnish competitions. I don´t call myself on 3 point rule if i play ghost without ball in hand but i try fulfill it.
It is about being honest to yourself. You don´t need to ask others opinion.

but anyways my opinion is that template is ok for use if you have really bad cloth and racks don´t open at all. Then u should make normal size triangle outlines. I personally would not like to have template. I think it would do more harm than help.

 

[The_JV]

Maybe this is more moral issue.. I like to practice. 9-ball ghost with 2 behind the rack and random otherwise just not give myself too much leeway..
If i wanted to push new record or something I could pattern rack+ soft break for sure. I want to make my records without tricks. No pattern racking or something fishy soft breaking. I break same rules as we use in Finnish competitions. I don´t call myself on 3 point rule if i play ghost without ball in hand but i try fulfill it.
It is about being honest to yourself. You don´t need to ask others opinion.

but anyways my opinion is that template is ok for use if you have really bad cloth and racks don´t open at all. Then u should make normal size triangle outlines. I personally would not like to have template. I think it would do more harm than help.

Well I definitely qualify for the bad cloth and lousy racks....lol.

If the rules say that the break ball must be outside of a imaginary rack thickness, then that's what I'll do. I'd rather have a real number to measure this distance, then the arbitrary "whatever you have handy" rack.

 

[Bob Jewett]

If the rules say that the break ball must be outside of a imaginary rack thickness, then that's what I'll do. I'd rather have a real number to measure this distance, then the arbitrary "whatever you have handy" rack.

I think the exact shape of the triangle -- a normal, commercial, simple triangle -- has far less effect on the game than the state of the cloth. I suggest you buy a triangle and be done with it. I recommend the Delta-13 with sound dampers whether as sold or DIY.

As for why there has never been a standard triangle shape, I suspect it is for the same reason that the table specifications were flexible to non-existent. The specs were set by a manufacturers' association (BCA) and they had to accept the products already being manufactured. Also, they probably didn't think a triangle spec was needed -- a triangle was just a triangle and they all looked pretty much the same for a long time.

 

[The_JV]

I think the exact shape of the triangle -- a normal, commercial, simple triangle -- has far less effect on the game than the state of the cloth. I suggest you buy a triangle and be done with it. I recommend the Delta-13 with sound dampers whether as sold or DIY.

As for why there has never been a standard triangle shape, I suspect it is for the same reason that the table specifications were flexible to non-existent. The specs were set by a manufacturers' association (BCA) and they had to accept the products already being manufactured. Also, they probably didn't think a triangle spec was needed -- a triangle was just a triangle and they all looked pretty much the same for a long time.

I have one, and have been done with it for some time...lol. I know that's not what you meant, but a triangle isn't giving me consistent results on my worn table. Template for me it is, and if I ever happen to break a record using that method at least it will allow for some drama to be discussed ad nauseam.

The only relavent markings I have on my table are the foot spot, and what was needed to align a sardo I have been given. I'm not going to add more for sake of adding more. Someone can feel free to discredit anything I post regarding a high run. It's simply not that improtant to me.

As far as whether or not a triangle spec is required.... well off the top of my head, my local hall there are at least 3 different rack types that certainly have different dimensions. I would think a dimension in this regard is just as relavent as ball diameter.

Dear god... >$80usd for a triangle...? ...and that's the cheapest version. I didn't see sound dampers on their website. I'm assuming the leather inserts perform this function.

 

[The_JV]

I personally would not like to have template. I think it would do more harm than help.

Sorry I meant to reply to this specifically....

I thought the use of a template would be more of a pain as well before giving it a try. I think it would boil down to what "style" of 14.1 play you prefer. I subscribe to the aggressive, bust em out hard style, so the balls clear the template in rather short order. More often than not I'm removing the template after the break shot.

If you prefer the traditional style that generally breaks balls away as required, then I could see the template being more of a hinderance in those soft quarter stroke types of shots.

 

[Poolmanis]

Yes. My table is not breaking too well either. I am more "modern" style breaker nowadays and those bad racks open too with enuff POWA!

 

[The_JV]

Yes. My table is not breaking too well either. I am more "modern" style breaker nowadays and those bad racks open too with enuff POWA!

Lol.... I hear ya. I wasn't overly concerned about the quality of spread after a break shot until after I tried the template. The difference was something to behold honestly.

I'm also adjusting to a new player and hitting with extra force is throwing me off somewhat.

 

[Dan White]

So I thought I would dig into the rules a little... Our local high run thread isn't seem to be enforcing such a thing, and isn't enforcing things like all ball fouls or specific racking method.

Here is what I found on the BCA rules website:
If the 15th (un-pocketed) ball of a rack and/or the cue ball interferes with the triangle being lowered straight down into position for racking, refer to the diagram, which indicates the proper manner of relocating balls.

Here's the rule from a site "claiming" the WPA version:
A ball is considered to interfere with the rack if it is within or overlaps the outline of the rack. The referee will state when asked whether a ball interferes with the rack

Looks like the point is not to have the break ball in a position that interferes with the racking method. If the racking method whether it be a thin triangle, thick triangle, sardo, or the focus of this discussion a template, isn't inhibited at all then it is prefectly fine. The difference here is that the template wouldn't interfere with any ball regardless of its proximity to the rack. Interference to the rack would occur prior.

So if a template is acceptable for racking purposes, then there is no proximity rule for the break ball.

Unless of course there is a definitive measurement for the no man's land around the rack. The linked BCA website mentions a diagram for reference, but I was unable to find it.

***EDIT***
Here's the actual WPA rules from their site:
When the balls are re-racked, the apex ball is omitted if only fourteen balls are
being racked. The marked outline of the triangle will be used to determine whether an
intended break ball is in the rack area. If the table is tapped at 14.1 the outline of a triangle
will still be drawn for the purpose of deciding whether a ball is in the rack area. When ball rack template is used at 14.1 the outline of a triangle will still be drawn for the purpose of deciding whether a ball is in the rack area..

The problem with the above is the lack of standard for rack thickness....? I could easily make a functional rack that's only 1/16th in thickness and get away with every close proximity break ball I have encountered.

I think the reality is the proximity rule is in place for sake of settling arguments on whether a break ball needs to be moved to the head spot. I don't think there's an advantage to be had by being closer to the rack. In fact as the shooter you're probably better off having it moved to the head spot. Things like rack alignment and gaps are far more improtant.

It's an interesting question and I'd listen to whatever Bob Jewett says since he is in on writing some of these rules. I probably overstepped by saying that a high run without a triangle outline and using the template would be disqualified. What I'm saying is that even though we are all using tables with different specs, one important factor is that we are all using triangle outlines to help us determine which balls are break balls during the run. Having that much extra space around the rack for break balls could make a real difference. Just seems like apples and oranges. Anyway, the WPA solution feels like the right one.

 

[The_JV]

..... one important factor is that we are all using triangle outlines to help us determine which balls are break balls during the run. Having that much extra space around the rack for break balls could make a real difference. Just seems like apples and oranges. Anyway, the WPA solution feels like the right one.

Agreed... It's a rule of the game and I have no dog in the fight other than preferring to use a template for rack consistency.

I doubt I'll mark up my table even more for sake of the triangle outline. However I will play the game with erring on the side of extra distance.

 

[Straightpool_99]

In Europe they tried the equivalent and it didn't work out. They have combined championships with some set of 8 ball, 9 ball, 10 ball and 14.1. The tables are tapped (small dimples in the cloth) so no rack of any sort is used -- you just roll the balls into place. Players figured out that there are dead balls out of the full rack and the 14-ball rack. Some players started ignoring the break ball and simply played for position on a dead ball for their break shot. They moved the rack for 14.1 to the other end of the table where there was no tapping.

This is true. In a particular tournament Mario He and others played for the head ball bank and other dead shots rather than normal breakballs. This was with table tapping, not physical racking templates.

If the OP wants to use a template at home, I don't see much of a problem with it, but in competition is a different matter. Not only are there dead balls, but the rack actually may stay together more than it actually spreads apart, due to the template holding balls in place with soft and intermediate contacts. The template will also get in the way of various shots (ever tried a draw shot over a template rack?) and redirect balls that are being broken out softly, making the game less predictable overall. There is a reason why it isn't done. I've tried it, and it doesn't work nearly as well as you may imagine. If you want to try it as a last resort, go for it.

My suggestion is that you either play for larger angles on your breakshots, or play a different style all together. Instead of smashing the balls apart, use breakshots that redirect the cueball back to center table, like below the rack breakshots. Then pick the rack apart from there.

 

[The_JV]

If the OP wants to use a template at home, I don't see much of a problem with it, but in competition is a different matter. Not only are there dead balls, but the rack actually may stay together more than it actually spreads apart, due to the template holding balls in place with soft and intermediate contacts. The template will also get in the way of various shots (ever tried a draw shot over a template rack?) and redirect balls that are being broken out softly, making the game less predictable overall. There is a reason why it isn't done. I've tried it, and it doesn't work nearly as well as you may imagine. If you want to try it as a last resort, go for it.

This is actually the complete opposite of my short experience. In fact the only reason why I continue to use the template is because of how well the rack comes apart after a break shot. That said, I opt not to play the game with the traditional "light" touch break shots. Not that much force is necessary when the rack is solid.

Yesterday after posting in this thread I made an effort to track the removal of the template after break shots. Only 1 in roughly 15 break shots left a ball that prevented me from immediately removing the template. ...and in that one case, it did not hold together a cluster or effect play. I also don't see why a ball marker couldn't be used to aid in template removal. This common practice in other games.

At this point there's nothing that would motovate me to use a triangle. I suspect I may revisit it once the table gets reconidtioned. Whenever that may happen.

 

[Dan White]

This is actually the complete opposite of my short experience. In fact the only reason why I continue to use the template is because of how well the rack comes apart after a break shot. That said, I opt not to play the game with the traditional "light" touch break shots. Not that much force is necessary when the rack is solid.

Yesterday after posting in this thread I made an effort to track the removal of the template after break shots. Only 1 in roughly 15 break shots left a ball that prevented me from immediately removing the template. ...and in that one case, it did not hold together a cluster or effect play. I also don't see why a ball marker couldn't be used to aid in template removal. This common practice in other games.

At this point there's nothing that would motovate me to use a triangle. I suspect I may revisit it once the table gets reconidtioned. Whenever that may happen.

If you are clearing every ball out of the rack area on all your break shots then you aren't playing straight pool, sorry.

 

[The_JV]

If you are clearing every ball out of the rack area on all your break shots then you aren't playing straight pool, sorry.

Ah... there it is. I was wondering when this was going to be said. Little did I know that shooting with a template isn't taboo, but shooting with more force is. ...and for sake of clarity, I didn't say I clear every ball. I said that way more often than not, there's nothing from preventing me from removing the template after the break shot.

I think it goes without saying that one must adhere to the rules of the game, to legitimately claim that they are playing said game. That would of course include the arbitrary triangle interference with a break ball that doesn't effect me when racking with a template. So please, if you could post or merely cite the rule regarding the maximum permissible force for performing the break shot, I would greatly appreciate it....lol

I know you can't, and the above is tongue in cheek. According to the rules I'm playing straight pool. It may not be the way you like to play it, but it is the way it is. You may not play patterns in 8 ball the way I think they should be done. That doesn't translate to you "not" playing 8 ball.

 

[Cameron Smith]

If you are clearing every ball out of the rack area on all your break shots then you aren't playing straight pool, sorry.

But with that sentiment, you’d have to say that neither is Thorsten. Granted he is using the triangle, but he’s also benefiting from immaculate equipment. I tried the magic rack myself last night and it’s not like it gives you a full table spread. It just keeps you from getting slugged.

Shallow break shots still produce bigger clusters and thinner break shots open up more along the lines of what you see on better cloth. And by the time I’m at a point where I’m just lightly nudging balls, the rack has been removed.

 

[The_JV]

But with that sentiment, you’d have to say that neither is Thorsten. Granted he is using the triangle, but he’s also benefiting from immaculate equipment. I tried the magic rack myself last night and it’s not like it gives you a full table spread. It just keeps you from getting slugged.

Shallow break shots still produce bigger clusters and thinner break shots open up more along the lines of what you see on better cloth. And by the time I’m at a point where I’m just lightly nudging balls, the rack has been removed.

All the above, and especially the bolded...

 

[Dan White]

Ah... there it is. I was wondering when this was going to be said. Little did I know that shooting with a template isn't taboo, but shooting with more force is. ...and for sake of clarity, I didn't say I clear every ball. I said that way more often than not, there's nothing from preventing me from removing the template after the break shot.

I think it goes without saying that one must adhere to the rules of the game, to legitimately claim that they are playing said game. That would of course include the arbitrary triangle interference with a break ball that doesn't effect me when racking with a template. So please, if you could post or merely cite the rule regarding the maximum permissible force for performing the break shot, I would greatly appreciate it....lol

I know you can't, and the above is tongue in cheek. According to the rules I'm playing straight pool. It may not be the way you like to play it, but it is the way it is. You may not play patterns in 8 ball the way I think they should be done. That doesn't translate to you "not" playing 8 ball.

Yes, I'm being a little snarky on this, I guess to make a point. 9 ball struggled with the break rules because pro's kept finding ways to cinch shots on the break and make the game too easy. In straight pool, if you find a way to bust the rack open like you are playing 8 ball then it isn't really straight pool in the sense that you won't develop skills to navigate around and open up secondary clusters. In fact, if you break them too much you may find it harder to get out. Funny clusters tend to happen at the rails.

Technically, of course, you are playing straight pool. If you find a way to have 8 ball type breaks then IMO you are missing out on a great part of the game. Thorsten can do whatever he wants because his goal is to win tournaments. I'm pretty sure he is adept at taking apart clusters, too. The game changed enough with equipment changes that now they call it a "modern" game. Smash and grab.

Oh, and I also don't like it when people call a straight pool match a "race to 150." So don't do that, either.

 

[Dan White]

But with that sentiment, you’d have to say that neither is Thorsten. Granted he is using the triangle, but he’s also benefiting from immaculate equipment. I tried the magic rack myself last night and it’s not like it gives you a full table spread. It just keeps you from getting slugged.

Shallow break shots still produce bigger clusters and thinner break shots open up more along the lines of what you see on better cloth. And by the time I’m at a point where I’m just lightly nudging balls, the rack has been removed.

They changed the game enough to call it a "modern" game. I find that if I use the Simonis X1 on the rack area that helps a lot.

 

[The_JV]

Yes, I'm being a little snarky on this, I guess to make a point. 9 ball struggled with the break rules because pro's kept finding ways to cinch shots on the break and make the game too easy. In straight pool, if you find a way to bust the rack open like you are playing 8 ball then it isn't really straight pool in the sense that you won't develop skills to navigate around and open up secondary clusters. In fact, if you break them too much you may find it harder to get out. Funny clusters tend to happen at the rails.

Technically, of course, you are playing straight pool. If you find a way to have 8 ball type breaks then IMO you are missing out on a great part of the game. Thorsten can do whatever he wants because his goal is to win tournaments. I'm pretty sure he is adept at taking apart clusters, too. The game changed enough with equipment changes that now they call it a "modern" game. Smash and grab.

Oh, and I also don't like it when people call a straight pool match a "race to 150." So don't do that, either.

I couldn't possibly agree more....

When I first started playing, I wouldn't say that I was making an effort to minimize the break shot results, but I fully embraced the ticky tack nature of the traditional game. I found my short CB control, cluster management, and combo/carom game improved. However, the 50% slug rack factor I was experiencing was killing my efforts. After one very frustrating morning, I wondered how the template would work without the head ball. What I found was that I cold count on a decent spread every time I went into the rack the first time. I was sold....

Now you're completely right of course. The game is different with a decent spread. I'm not necessarily destroying the break shot, but it is no where near the difficulty I was originally experiencing. Trade off I suppose. My current goal is to score well. Not play a tight game with an imaginary opponent.

I suppose if I was playing with a pool of other 14.1 players that could capitalize on my misses, my view would be different.

 

[Dan White]

But with that sentiment, you’d have to say that neither is Thorsten. Granted he is using the triangle, but he’s also benefiting from immaculate equipment. I tried the magic rack myself last night and it’s not like it gives you a full table spread. It just keeps you from getting slugged.

Shallow break shots still produce bigger clusters and thinner break shots open up more along the lines of what you see on better cloth. And by the time I’m at a point where I’m just lightly nudging balls, the rack has been removed.

They changed the game enough to call it a "modern" game. I find that if I use the Simonis X1 on the rack area that helps a lot.

I couldn't possibly agree more....

When I first started playing, I wouldn't say that I was making an effort to minimize the break shot results, but I fully embraced the ticky tack nature of the traditional game. I found my short CB control, cluster management, and combo/carom game improved. However, the 50% slug rack factor I was experiencing was killing my efforts. After one very frustrating morning, I wondered how the template would work without the head ball. What I found was that I cold count on a decent spread every time I went into the rack the first time. I was sold....

Now you're completely right of course. The game is different with a decent spread. I'm not necessarily destroying the break shot, but it is no where near the difficulty I was originally experiencing. Trade off I suppose. My current goal is to score well. Not play a tight game with an imaginary opponent.

I suppose if I was playing with a pool of other 14.1 players that could capitalize on my misses, my view would be different.

I was reflecting on my comments earlier and I was really thinking that you were new to the game. I think that's why I said it the way I did. If you are an 8 ball player and you approach straight pool in the same way then you are missing a lot of necessary skills that makes the game interesting.

How about this. When you can run 100 each day and the game becomes too easy then you can worry about whether you are doing it right.